Sensible Erection | Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

Adult Search - Want porn? Search for it.

Monday, 14 November 2005

Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

quote [ 1)Why are you so quiet?
2)Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
3)Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries free?
4)Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
5)Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions? ]

I find that question #2 is the most relevant. The others, while relevant, are less interesting. But, I wouldn't mind sparking up a ~~doobie~~ conversation about this.

Look, let's cut to the chase. I posted this hoping for intelligent conversation - or, at least as intelligent as I can expect on the Intarwebs. This was not intended as flamebait, trolls, or anything else. I found it intersting, thought I would forward it along. I even stated that I thought the questions were kind lame, but might create debate. Mod however you want, but ask yourself why you want to down mod this entry considering the intent in which it was posted.

[politics] [by Studmuffin@11:09amGMT] [+6 Interesting]

Comments

KingPellinore said @ 11:18am GMT on 14th Nov
I'll give it a +1 Interesting only because it sparks debate. I'll let others do the debating though, because I'm at work AND on cold medicine.

Plus, I'm a lazy bastard. And I know there are members of the SE community who can tear this line of questioning a new one.

*Starts stopwatch to count how long before someone shouts "Strawman!", or, "Ad Hominem Attack!"*

Studmuffin said @ 11:19am GMT on 14th Nov
Exactly - I found the questions to be silly (except #2). But, they are still potentially capable of sparking constructive debate.

dapancho said @ 11:26am GMT on 14th Nov
I wonder how many Catholics denounced the Inquisition and the Crusades back in the day.

Also, in regards to #3, what do they mean by "free"?

KingPellinore said @ 11:46am GMT on 14th Nov
Please. Pope Pious II wouldn't even denounce the holocaust while it was going on.

bathoz said @ 12:00pm GMT on 14th Nov
Nevermind the fact that Pope promised that crusaders sins would be forgiven if they went on the crusades.

Hey, those 72 (76? Whatever) virgins are crazy.

Nihil said @ 12:06pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:2]
That's because it's pretty hard to denounce earthly crimes while you've been having breakfast with your boss for the last six centuries.

You must have been thinking of Pius XII.

KingPellinore said @ 12:48pm GMT on 14th Nov
So I left out an X. I say we follw Eddie Izzard's advice and rename him Pope Gutless Bastard the First.

TheGrandMart said @ 1:24pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:3 Informative]
That's bullshit. The claim Pope Pius XII was silent during WWII was from a fictional play called The Deputy and the anti-catholic hordes accepted it. Also the Pope took a position of neutrality during WWI and WWII. It's estimated the Vatican saved more jewish lives than the allies.

"[Pius] is the only human being who has always contradicted me and who has never obeyed me." - Adolf Hitler

"It's a dirty, low thing to do for the Catholic Church to continue its subversive activity in every way possible and now even to extend its propaganda to Protestant children evacuated from the regions threatened by air raids. Next to the Jews these politico-divines are about the most loathsome riffraff that we are still sheltering in the Reich. The time will come after the war for an over-all solution of this problem." - Adolf Hitler

"Only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty." - Albert Einstein

"The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world."
- Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of Israel

"I told [Pope Pius XII] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews…. We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church."
- Moshe Sharett (who later became Israel’s first foreign minister and second prime minister)

The New York Times, Christmas Day,1941: "The voice of Pius XII is the only voice in the silence and darkness that developed in Europe this Christmas ... He is the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all."

KingPellinore said @ 3:15pm GMT on 14th Nov
From The Straight Dope

"Let's not quibble, though. Here's the crux of the issue: By mid-1942, Pius could have had no doubt that the Nazis were slaughtering Jews en masse. Yet though papal representatives did lodge protests against the deportation of Jews, the pope himself made only vague appeals, never mentioning Jews or Nazis specifically. (The one time he intervened personally, in an attempt to halt deportations from Hungary in 1944, he referred only to people persecuted because of their race.) Granted, others also equivocated. The Red Cross, for example, kept silent for fear its humanitarian work would be halted. But Pius was the pope. He had a unique responsibility to speak out--no one else's words would've carried the same moral authority. Just a few years later, he denounced communism and made it clear he wanted bishops in Soviet bloc countries to oppose it, even if they risked persecution. Condemnation of the Holocaust might also have provoked reprisals, and certainly wouldn't have stayed Hitler's hand. But if ever there was an occasion that demanded such a noble if futile gesture, wasn't this it?"

Link to full article here

TheGrandMart said @ 4:00pm GMT on 14th Nov
Wikipedia:
"Although today's press generally villifies Pius XII for not condemning Nazism explicitly enough, the New York Times in its Christmas editorials of 1941 and 1942 praised Pius XII for his moral leadership as a "lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent" and for, among other things, assailing "the violent occupation of territory, and the exile and persecution of human beings, for no other reason than race." On Christmas Day, 1941, during perhaps the lowest point of the war, the New York Times opined: "The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas.... He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all." Time Magazine also credited Pius XII and the Catholic Church for "fighting totalitarianism more knowingly, devoutly, and authoritatively, and for a longer time, than any other organized power" (Time, 16 August 1943). It is estimated that at a bare minimum 300,000 Jews were saved through the direct, but covert activities of the Vatican during World War II. World War II historian Martin Gilbert places the number at 800,000. Rabbi Pinchas Lapide, a former Israeli diplomat, credited Pius XII and the Catholic Church with saving 860,000 Jews. "It’s a big number, to be sure," says columnist Sidney Zion in the March 16, 2000 Houston Chronicle, "but even if we halve it and then subtract by two, we have more Jews saved by the Vatican than by the Allies." Indeed, the Vatican is credited with saving more Jews from the Holocaust than all the allied forces combined. The United States turned away boats of Jewish refugees and England did not take many refugees either. After the war had ended, Pius XII was praised by numerous Jewish organizations who had first-hand knowledge of his prudent and heroic actions in saving the lives of Jews. The head rabbi of Rome (Israel Zolli) converted to Catholicism, citing as his reason Pius XII's witness to religious fraternity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

In one specific instance the Bishops of the Netherlands spoke out against the deportation of Jews and Catholic Jews shortly after the occupation. The Germans, thereafter, responded by singling out Jews such as Edith Stein and murdering them. The Netherlands went on to loose at least 75% of it's Jewish population, third only to Poland and Greece.

Catholic League:
"As Golda Meir, future Israeli Prime Minister and then Israeli representative to the United Nations, said on the floor of the General Assembly at the Pope’s death in 1958: “During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and commiserate with the victims.” Some of the Jewish organizations that praised Pope Pius XII at the time of his death for saving Jewish lives during the horror of the Nazi Holocaust were: the World Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the Synagogue Council of America, the Rabbinical Council of America, the American Jewish Congress, the New York Board of Rabbis, the American Jewish Committee, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the American Jewish Committee, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the National Conference of Christians and Jews and the National Council of Jewish Women. Were all these simply lying or playing politics? Would these organizations insult the memory of the millions killed for some ephemeral political gain?"

"In September 1942, Pius XII was approached by the Allies to join in a statement condemning the Nazi atrocities. This was to be an official statement of the Allied governments and, as such, it was impossible for Pius XII to join the effort. However, in his annual Christmas message of 1942, Pius XII would speak out once again forcefully. Pius condemned totalitarian regimes and mourned the victims of the war: “the hundreds of thousands who, through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.” He called on Catholics to shelter any and all refugees. The statement was loudly praised in the Allied world. In Germany, it was seen as the final repudiation by Pius XII of the “new order” imposed by the Nazis. The Gestapo reported that Pope Pius XII “is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminal.”

Pope Pius XII did not join in with official Allied government statements attacking the Axis nations for obvious reasons. To maintain Vatican neutrality – an absolute necessity if the Holy See was to have any capability to save lives and protest Nazi action – it could not be viewed as a signature to Allied propaganda statements. As Pulitzer-prize winning historian John Toland, no friend of Pius or the Church, noted: “The Church, under the Pope’s guidance…saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions and rescue organizations combined…the British and Americans, despite lofty pronouncements, had not only avoided taking any meaningful action but gave sanctuary to few persecuted Jews.”

http://www.catholicleague.org/pius/piusxii_faqs.html

AngelHedgie said @ 5:04pm GMT on 14th Nov
Also, let's not forget that there's quite a bit of evidence that after the war, ODESSA used the Church to smuggle SS out of Europe to South America.

TheGrandMart said @ 5:46pm GMT on 14th Nov
There was one individual bishop who was very sympathetic to the Nazis and had a hand in most of what is blamed on the Church now. He ( Aloïs Hudal) was considered a renegade for helping several SS officers to escape. The Vatican the Americans, the rest of the Allies, and the Red Cross all mistakenly or otherwise were involved with helping former SS members (especially Sicherheitsdienst) flee. I don't hear outcry as the Red Cross knowingly helped ODESSA. Also remember there were more than 1,000,000 members of the SS at the end of the war and there were no means to check the details of every person looking for help at the end of WWII. The Vatican and everyone else involved in WWII probably gave SS members humanitarian assistance. It's estimated 50,000 of the nearly 1,000,000 SS members were war criminals.

punchopenpunchclose said @ 2:49pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
Because the Socialist worker's party was huge on christianity and speaking out agains the germans at this point, especially considering the location of the Vatican, is a death wish 4 with charles bronson.

muttly said @ 12:21pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
It's not like anyone had a daily report from CNN on how the Crusades were going. I doubt most of the participants, even the people in power knew much more than their immediate experience and it was likely weeks or months between updates. I even doubt it would have occured to people to question what the power elites were doing even if they had some real grasp on the big picture. The idea that those born commoners had any right to question nobility is a rather new one and if you actually believed the top guy has a hotline to god, well...

EPT said @ 4:52pm GMT on 14th Nov
Yeah, the crusades are pretty relevent to how we live and breathe today. We know there are better ways of doing things, we have incredible amounts of communication and the common man has much more access to information, and have just generally evolved past the point of "Nearly a thousand years ago people who you are loosely descended from did nasty things to us, so it's okay for us to do it to you now".

I don't think there's an answer for the middle east. There are far too many people there who refuse to communicate, who believe in two-eyes-for-an-eye justice, and who will never forgive. There's been a lot of atrocities in every direction in that area, so without forgiveness on all parts, nothing will be achieved any time soon.

googirl0007 said @ 11:29am GMT on 14th Nov
kinda interesting that this exact post is at -2 on sensible election right now, while it has received nothing but upmods here (its at +5 right now).

maybe everyone hates bosco on SEL

strangeffect said @ 11:39am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
bosco doesn't post questions, he posts rhetorical questions.

zenviper said @ 11:43am GMT on 14th Nov
ding ding ding, we have a winner!

HoZay said @ 11:47am GMT on 14th Nov
Now show her what she's won!

KingPellinore said @ 11:59am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Interesting]
This!

larger2day said @ 1:00pm GMT on 14th Nov
I volunteer to give her her price!

ragazze said @ 2:06pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:2]
if you are at work or school make sure to click this

userman said @ 11:39am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:3 Insightful]
The fact that Catholics didn't denounce the Inquisition and Crusades doesn't make the current Islamic terror right. All three events are unquestionably evil.

I think people were probably slow to denounce the Inquisition because if they did, they would be labled as heratics and killed. There are probably similar reasons muslems do not denounce Jihad: it would make them a target.

strangeffect said @ 11:40am GMT on 14th Nov
click the "moderate/reply" link in the comment you're replying to please.

Volcaos said @ 11:48am GMT on 14th Nov
very much so. Look at Salman Rushdie.

Even so, look at Jordan over the weekend, massive demonstrations anti Terrorism by Muslims.

here

and here

maryyugo said @ 1:01pm GMT on 14th Nov
well yeah. but there don't seem to be any anti-terrorist demonstrations when the violence by Muslims is in Western Countries. or even Indonesia. sure, when the homicide/suicide nut cases start blasting up Jordan, they squawk.

Ronin.ca said @ 2:54pm GMT on 14th Nov
Bullshit.

v21 said @ 3:57pm GMT on 14th Nov
Google search for "muslim demonstrate against terror"

To quote one of the snippets: "We should take this for what it is - a demonstration against terrorism & proof of progressive Muslim states. Why wasn't this reported in the mSM?"

If there don't seem to be any, then youre probably not paying attention.

maryyugo said @ 4:47pm GMT on 14th Nov
read those articles a bit more closely or add "motivated by" to your search.

v21 said @ 5:52pm GMT on 14th Nov
The first four are all Muslims demonstrating against terrorism. What do you mean?

rosary said @ 6:03pm GMT on 14th Nov
I don't like you very much.

dapancho said @ 12:07pm GMT on 14th Nov
I wasn't saying it makes them right. I'm saying it doesn't make those Muslims who are peaceful and not terrorists bad for not denouncing attacks.

medyv said @ 11:40am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
I might answer some of these when I get back, but the second question is obvious bullshit. The first modern Palestinian terrorists came from the secular nationalist movements, like the PFLP, DFLP and others in the PLO.

Suggesting Islam is the cause of Palestinian terrorism is just as idiotic as suggesting Judaism was the cause of Israeli terrorism prior to independence.

insickness said @ 1:56pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
The short answer to #2, is that Christians are a vast minority among Palestinians. In the West Bank by population: Muslim 75%, Jewish 17%, Christian and other 8%.

The long answer...

I downmodded because the questions are loaded. You could just as well ask, why does the Israeli military fire bone-crushing rubber bullets and live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian civilians engaged in peaceful protest? Why do Israelis continue a 37 year occupation of Palestine? Why does the entire world think it's okay that Palestinians can continue to live with no rights other than what Israel chooses to grant them, meanwhile pushing them off their homes and land to make way for exclusively Jewish Israeli settlements? Is it because Jews are inherently evil and racist? Is it because the Jewish religion is inherently fucked up and instigates this? No, that is not the answer.

All religions are sick and twisted. Or moreso, all have been twisted for sick political means. I hate religion, but to imply that the religion of the oppressed is somehow inherently worse than your religion is wrong.

medyv said @ 6:14pm GMT on 14th Nov
They are clearly loaded questions meant to demonize Islam and the Islamic world, which is why I don't care enough to respond to them.

You're right to say the same things could be asked of the Israelis -- ironically, they (technically Zionist extremists as Israel didn't exist yet) were the first to use terrorism in the region against British colonialism and the Arab population prior to Israeli independence.

Nostrildamus said @ 11:41am GMT on 14th Nov
This is just stupid. I'd make a few points but they've been made in the metafilter thread already.

Studmuffin said @ 11:45am GMT on 14th Nov
Not everyone reads metafilter, so downmodding as flamebait is kinda lame... Just sayin' is all.

I don't read metafilter, *OR* SE, for that matter.

I like bjoobies with my politics.

Naruki said @ 11:48am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Underrated]
Okay, what the heck is "metafilter"?

Studmuffin said @ 11:56am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Informative]
I assume this:

http://www.metafilter.com/

But like I said, not everyone reads it.

HoZay said @ 11:43am GMT on 14th Nov
I think you only need one answer for questions 2 - 5: fundamentalism.
Islam had no Reformation, Islamic thinking has not been forced to evolve and compete. Fundies tend to feel victimised (justifying violence against the oppressor), and righteous (doing god's work, smiting god's enemies).

As to why they are so quiet, the non-crazies don't want to speak up because it's dangerous, or they don't want to get involved, or they don't care that much. That applies to christians, too. How many prominent christians put themselves on the line to protect abortion doctors or shield funerals from Fred Phelps? I can't think of any.

Volcaos said @ 11:57am GMT on 14th Nov
Well it has actually been forced to evolve into fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is a recent phenomena brought about by the need to create a more aggressive Islam that would put itself against the colonizing powers that had control of 95 % of Muslim countries until the mid-20th century. It was born as a part of independence fights against the Christian imperialists (literally, mainly UK and France). When colonialism stopped you couldn't just stop a form of religion, and so it went on finding new enemies.

A bit like the US/Russia thing, no more Russia?... Let's look at Islamic countries! First it was the Red's, now its the Sand N*****. All part of socio-political construction of identity.

maryyugo said @ 1:03pm GMT on 14th Nov
what i don't get is why almighty God, Allah, Zeus or whoever can't do his OWN dirty work? too lazy? too vain? or what?

jamdark said @ 1:18pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Funny]
I think it's about that principal that some administrative people (bosses) work with:
"My underling does all the work, I get the credit. I keep the underling quiet."

Remember, God created us in his image.

maryyugo said @ 4:48pm GMT on 14th Nov
"God created us in His image" ... and we returned the compliment?

HoZay said @ 4:46pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Funny]
too imaginary?

maryyugo said @ 4:48pm GMT on 14th Nov
thank you

vahid said @ 5:55pm GMT on 14th Nov
he doesn't have to do his dirty work, his warriors are here in the south:
clicky

thezombiedude said @ 11:50am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:3 Insightful]
If I suddenly decided to become Muslim, would I be expected to know the answers to these questions?

strangeffect said @ 12:12pm GMT on 14th Nov
I never liked Woody Allen until I converted.

headlessfriar said @ 2:01pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Funny]
Huh. I never would have thought that Woody Allen would appeal to Muslims.

KropperPrime said @ 11:58am GMT on 14th Nov [Score:-3 Flamebait]
"Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?"

Because they are all in America, they are called Republicans.

sensibleb said @ 12:46pm GMT on 14th Nov
That doesn't even make sense.

strangeffect said @ 12:49pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:-1]
Don't bother, it'll get confused.

Tungston said @ 12:43pm GMT on 14th Nov
6) How many Muslims voted for Bush?

revphilth said @ 1:55pm GMT on 14th Nov
Bush got a lot of support from American Muslims in 2000 because they thought he would get tough with Israel.

The Middle East Quarterly Article "How did Muslims Vote in 2000" has a lengthy discussion, and this quote:

"Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and the GOP's pointman for attracting Muslims, argues that 'Bush's talk about outreach and inclusion had extraordinary results—the Muslim community went 2-1 for Bill Clinton [in 1996] and almost 8-1 for Bush.'"

bearken said @ 1:21pm GMT on 14th Nov
so.. how come murder became a virtue for Muslims?

v21 said @ 1:36pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:2 Informative]
Here's what i said on SEL, with some of the invective directed at aktung taken out.

"Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?"

Theyre not.
Simply compare: A round guess of 500 terrorist acts committed by Muslims in a year gives a figure of one for every 2 million muslims.

75 million schoolkids in the US - 45 school shootings a year (Academic year 2003-2004). Thats one for every 1.66 million kids.

So, statistically, it's more likely that a American kid will shoot up his school (or try to), than it is that a Muslim will launch a terrorist attack, given these not outrageous figures.

verycleanteeth said @ 4:30pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
How is this insightful? If we use MY round guess of 1000 terrorist acts by muslims per year, all of a sudden the figure is one for every 1 million muslims, and your point is moot.

v21 said @ 4:46pm GMT on 14th Nov
And the US State Department says there were only 190 terroist attacks (from all sources) in 2003. And bigdummy said most terrorist attacks were committed by the tamil tigers.

I see your point, though. It was a weak argument without that. But those statistics were a right pain to find, so can you blame me?

Morris Dancer said @ 4:18pm GMT on 14th Nov
Any list of questions without a lebanese cous cous recipe is a waste of my time.

kylemcBitch said @ 5:06pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
Look, let's cut to the chase. I posted this hoping for intelligent conversation - or, at least as intelligent as I can expect on the Intarwebs. This was not intended as flamebait, trolls, or anything else. I found it intersting, thought I would forward it along. I even stated that I thought the questions were kind lame, but might create debate. Mod however you want, but ask yourself why you want to down mod this entry considering the intent in which it was posted.

I have considered, and I am downmodding because the questions sucked. The "terrorist" have been Christians in the past, and ignoring that is re-writing history so that your (who ever asked these questions) beliefs look better.

Israel did such a great job protesting that they re-elected Sharon, a War Criminal. And there have been lots of Palestinian protest. It just doesnt make the news here because we dont bother reporting anything unless it involves alot of dead people.

And the line draw between Muslim countries and freedom. You may as well ask why so many Buddhist countries are Communist. I dont find it to be a fair connection, but for those of you that do, tell me what constitutes freedom? Because here in America we even have people claiming we are not truely free. I wont pretend the situation is all roses and candy over there, I am just saying that not everyone wants our brand of freedom.

Why are so many atrocities commited in the name of Christianity? The Inquisition killed how many? The Crusades? The History of Europe for so long was defined by the church, one could even draw a line to the atrocites the Kings and Queens commited back to the Pope (who said God put them in that position in the first place).

Why do Muslim governments hate other religions? I dont know. I wont deny this is true, I just think the question sucks because you could ask that about any theocratic state.

So if you must know, I down modded this because not only do the questions suck, but most of the answers will suck and be flamebait. You should have known better, so take your hit to karma like a man.

AngelHedgie said @ 5:29pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:1 Insightful]
This is flamebait because these questions aren't being asked in a geunine attempt to know, but in a crude game of "gotcha!" That said, I'll try to answer them for you.

1)Why are (the members of the Muslim community) so quiet?
Well, there's a lot of reasons. One is that while they may not like the tactics, they feel that there is no other route. Considering things like Israel's willful rejection of Oslo, it's really hard to blame them for thinking that. There's also the fact that you idiots like to listen to the one imam who's shouting "jihad", and ignore the vast sea of others who are saying "peace is the way".

2)Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
Most likely because the Palestinian Christian population is rather small.

3)Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries free?
Because the Middle East was a battleground for the Cold War. There have been many notable attempts in many of these countries to create open, moderate countries. And in almost every case, either the US or the USSR stepped in and stomped that flegling government down. We're still at it today, supporting tyrants who treat people like Uncle Ben's so that we can send people there for milk and torture.

4)Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
This question is probably best anwered by another question: what makes you think that is something restricted to Islam? The answer?

It's not. Just recently, we had a major Christian religious head tell a community that didn't vote the way he wanted that God was going to smite them all. We have had commentators suggest that conversion by the sword would be a good thing. There are folks who "do the Lord's work" by blowing people up.

All religions have their lunatic fringe. And it's high time we started noticing that.

5)Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?

Again, this isn't unique to Islam. A sitting US president, when asked about atheists, remarked that he didn't consider them real Americans. There are stories of Christian churches in Israel being severely damaged or destroyed, and then the congregation having it "suggested" to them by the local community that perhaps it's better if they DIDN'T rebuild. And that's not even getting into the religious mess that is the Indian Subcontinent.

Why do religions persecute other religions? Simple - they don't like competition.

kylemcBitch said @ 6:21pm GMT on 14th Nov
You seem to accept that the questions are right:

1)Why are (the members of the Muslim community) so quiet?
Well, there's a lot of reasons. One is that while they may not like the tactics, they feel that there is no other route. Considering things like Israel's willful rejection of Oslo, it's really hard to blame them for thinking that. There's also the fact that you idiots like to listen to the one imam who's shouting "jihad", and ignore the vast sea of others who are saying "peace is the way".

2)Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
Most likely because the Palestinian Christian population is rather small.

First off, there have been alot of protest against terrorism and suicide bombing in particular in the past. It doesnt take a genius to use google and find that these questions all have really simple answers...just not the answers that the person asking them wants to hear.

As for no Christians, I remember when fighting broke out in Jesus's birthplace, and the church there was filled with Palestinians praying.

Sorry, but this is bullshit, and if you are going to answer the questions, at least research.

Studmuffin said @ 6:34pm GMT on 14th Nov
'flamebait', yet you respond in an intelligent fashion. So, the post wasn't flamebait at all. If it was flamebait or a troll, you would have called me a poopiehead or something like that.

Don't kill the messenger.

Hate the game, not the player.

/etc, etc.

v21 said @ 6:58pm GMT on 14th Nov
To be fair, this postreally has brought the bastards out. And they're shite questions. As you said yourself. Most of my arguing has been against the questions, really, and the responses they supply.

Naruki said @ 7:18pm GMT on 14th Nov [Score:2 Underrated]
The end does not justify the means.

Just because something is flamebait doesn't mean the respondents have to flame. It just means that it invites flames.

So when people choose to respond in a nicer way than you expect, it does not in any way make your original post a good thing.

That said, I can see a legitimate complaint against your post in that you declared the questions "relevant".